The validity and utility of the positive presentation management and negative presentation management scales for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer developed "validity" scales for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae) to detect underreporting-the Positive Presentation Management (PPM) Scale and overreporting-the Negative Presentation Management (NPM) Scale. In this investigation, the clinical utility of these scales was examined using the established validity scales from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al.) as the referent. The sample was composed of 370 psychiatric patients who completed the NEO PI-R and the MMPI-2 as part of a routine evaluation. Results indicated that response distortion compromised the utility of the NEO PI-R domain scales. Moreover, the PPM and NPM scales and an NPM-PPM index significantly differentiated invalid under-and overreporting groups from a valid responding group. The PPM and NPM-PPM index were adequate in classifying under- and overreporters, respectively.     

Research Validity Scales for the NEO-PI-R: additional evidence for reliability and validity

We examined the reliability and validity of the research validity scales (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) for the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) in a clinical sample. The Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Support for the validity of these scales was provided by the pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations with respective Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales. Finally, PAI profiles of individuals with invalid NPM scores were found to differ significantly from those with valid NPM scores. Comparisons of the invalid profiles with profiles from other clinical samples provided additional support for the use of the NPM scale as a measure of negative impression management.     

Research Validity Scales for the NEO-PI-R: Additional Evidence for Reliability and Validity

We examined the reliability and validity of the research validity scales (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) for the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) in a clinical sample. The Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Support for the validity of these scales was provided by the pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations with respective Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales. Finally, PAI profiles of individuals with invalid NPM scores were found to differ significantly from those with valid NPM scores. Comparisons of the invalid profiles with profiles from other clinical samples provided additional support for the use of the NPM scale as a measure of negative impression management.     

Effectiveness of NEO-PI-R research validity scales for discriminating analog malingering and genuine psychopathology

We investigated the research validity scales for the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) proposed by Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer (1997): Positive Presentation Management (PPM) and Negative Presentation Management (NPM). Additionally, an experimental analog to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2's (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) F-K index was calculated by subtracting the raw score on PPM from the raw score on NPM (NPM-PPM). In 2 studies, all indexes showed significant between-group differences when samples of analog malingerers (n = 97) were contrasted with psychiatric outpatients (n = 272). The sensitivity and specificity of these validity indexes indicated that although none performed well in extremely low base rate environments, the NPM and NPM-PPM indexes showed promise when the base rate of faking bad rose to higher levels.     

Effectiveness of NEO-PI-R Research Validity Scales for Discriminating Analog Malingering and Genuine Psychopathology

We investigated the research validity scales for the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) proposed by Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer (1997): Positive Presentation Management (PPM) and Negative Presentation Management (NPM). Additionally, an experimental analog to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2's (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) F - K index was calculated by subtracting the raw score on PPM from the raw score on NPM (NPM - PPM). In 2 studies, all indexes showed significant between-group differences when samples of analog malingerers (n = 97) were contrasted with psychiatric outpatients (n = 272). The sensitivity and specificity of these validity indexes indicated that although none performed well in extremely low base rate environments, the NPM and NPM - PPM indexes showed promise when the base rate of faking bad rose to higher levels.     

Substance or style? An investigation of the NEO-PI-R validity scales

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) has been criticized for the absence of validity scales designed to detect response distortion. Recently, validity scales were developed from the items of the NEO-PI-R (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) and several studies have used a variety of methods to test their use. However, it is controversial whether these scales are measuring something that is substantive (such as psychopathology or its absence) or stylistic (which might be effortful distortion or less conscious processes such as lack of insight). In this study, we used a multimethod-multitrait approach to examine the validity of these scales in a clinical sample of 668 participants diagnosed with personality disorders or major depression. Using various indicators of both stylistic and substantive variance, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) suggested that these validity scales measure something that may be conceptually distinct from, yet highly related to, substantive variance in responding.     

Effects of response sets on NEO-PI-R scores and their relations to external criteria

Validity scales indicate the extent to which the results of a self-report inventory are a valid indicator of the test taker's psychological functioning. Validity scales generally are designed to detect the common response sets of positive impression management (underreporting, or faking good), negative impression management (overreporting, or faking bad), and random responding. The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) is a popular personality assessment tool based on the 5-factor model of personality and is used in a variety of settings. The NEO-PI-R does not include objective validity scales to screen for positive or negative impression management. The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of recently proposed validity scales for detecting these response sets on the NEO-PI-R (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) and to examine the effects of positive and negative impression management on correlations between the NEO-PI-R and external criteria (the Interpersonal Adjective Scale-Revised-B5 [Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997] and the NEO-PI-R Form R). The validity scales discriminated with reasonable accuracy between standard responding and the 2 response sets. Additionally, most correlations between the NEO-PI-R and external criteria were significantly lower when participants were dissimulating than when responding to standard instructions. It appears that response sets of positive and negative impression management may pose a significant threat to the external validity of the NEO-PI-R and that validity scales for their detection might be a useful addition to the inventory.     

Detecting over- and underreporting of psychopathology with the Spanish-language Personality Assessment Inventory: findings from a simulation study with bilingual speakers

Existing research on the Spanish-language translation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; L. C. Morey, 1991) suggests that the validity scales from the English- and Spanish-language versions may not be equivalent measures. In the current study, 72 bilingual participants completed both the English- and Spanish-language versions of the PAI under the instructions to respond honestly, to overreport psychopathology for an insanity case, or to underreport psychopathology for an employment evaluation. Overall, the English- and Spanish-language validity scales performed similarly, and scores from the Negative Impression Management and the Positive Impression Management scales demonstrated the highest levels of equivalence and accuracy for the identification of simulators across language versions.     

On the validity of validity scales: the importance of defensive responding in the prediction of institutional misconduct

This study examined the effects of defensive responding on the prediction of institutional misconduct among male inmates (N = 349) who completed the Personality Assessment Inventory (L. C. Morey, 1991). Hierarchical logistic regression analyses demonstrated significant main effects for the Antisocial Features (ANT) scale as well as main effects for the Positive Impression Management (PIM) scale in some instances. Significant ANT x PIM interactions also were evident, particularly when examining recommended cut scores on these scales. These results demonstrate the predictive validity of ANT with prisoners and reinforce the importance of context when considering whether validity scales are in fact valid.     

Predicting observers' ratings of the big five from the CPI,HPI, and NEO–PI–R: a comparative validity study

The present study compares the ability of three widely used personality inventories to predict averaged acquaintance ratings. Scores from 135 individuals on the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987), Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan and Hogan, 1992) and NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R; Costa and McCrae, 1992) were correlated with four sets of acquaintance ratings representing four variants of the Five‐Factor Model. Validity coefficients for the NEO‐PI‐R primary domain scales equalled or surpassed the CPI and HPI validity coefficients. Across all inventory scales and subscales, the magnitude of validity coefficients was moderated by the congruence between a predictor's and criterion's secondary factor loading. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The predictive capacity of the MMPI-2 and PAI validity scales and indexes to detect coached and uncoached feigning

The objective of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales and indexes to detect malingering. Research participants were either informed (coached) or not informed (uncoached) about the presence and operating characteristics of the validity scales and instructed to fake bad on both the MMPI-2 and PAI. The validity scale and index scores produced by these research participants were then compared to those scores from a bona fide sample of psychiatric patients (n = 75). Coaching had no effect on the ability of the research participants to feign more successfully than those participants who received no coaching. For the MMPI-2, the Psychopathology F scale, or F(p), proved to be the best at distinguishing psychiatric patients from research participants instructed to malinger, although the other F scales (i.e., F and Fb) were also effective. For the PAI, the Rogers Discriminant Function index (RDF) was clearly superior to the other PAI fake-bad validity indicators; neither the Negative Impression Management scale nor Malingering Index were effective at detecting malingered profiles in this study. Overall, RDF proved to be marginally superior to F and F(p) in distinguishing MMPI-2 and PAI protocols produced by research participants asked to malinger and psychiatric patients. Both the RDF and the F and F(p) scales, however, were able to increase the predictive capability of one another.     

Deceptiveness on the PAI: a study of naïve faking with psychiatric inpatients

In this study, we sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) Validity scales (Negative Impression Management [NIM] and Positive Impression Management [PIM]) and indexes (Malingering index, Defensiveness index [DEF]; Morey, 1993, 1996; Cashel Discriminant Function; Cashel, Rogers, Sewell, & Martin-Cannici, 1995; and Rogers Discriminant Function [RDF]; Rogers, Sewell, Morey, & Ustad, 1996) to identify differences in profiles completed by psychiatric inpatients under standardized instructions (Time 1) and after random assignment (Time 2) to a fake good (n=21), fake bad (n=20), or retest (n=21) scenario. Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction effect. Whereas the retest group did not show any significant changes on the PAI variables from Time 1 to Time 2, both faking groups showed changes in expected directions. Discriminant function analyses revealed that NIM, RDF, and lower scores on DEF best differentiated between the faking bad and retest groups. PIM was the only nonredundant significant score discriminating the faking good and retest groups. Cutoffs for these scales and indexes established in prior research were supported using diagnostic efficiency statistics. Results suggest that NIM and RDF in faking bad scenarios and PIM in faking good scenarios are most sensitive to unsophisticated attempts to dissimulate by inpatient psychiatric patients.     

Bandwidth and fidelity on the NEO-Five Factor Inventory: replicability and reliability of Saucier's (1998) item cluster subcomponents

Many users of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) are unaware that Saucier (1998) developed item cluster subcomponents for each broad domain of the instrument similar to the facets of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In this study, I examined the following: the replicability of the subcomponents in young adult university and middle-aged community samples; whether item keying accounted for additional covariance among items; subcomponent correlations with a measure of socially desirable responding; subcomponent reliabilities; and subcomponent discriminant validity with respect to age-relevant criterion items expected to reflect varying associations with broad and narrow traits. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that all subcomponents were recoverable across samples and that the addition of method factors representing positive and negative item keying improved model fit. The subcomponents correlated no more with a measure of socially desirable responding than their parent domains and showed good average reliability. Correlations with criterion items suggested that subcomponents may prove useful in specifying which elements of NEO-FFI domains are more or less related to variables of interest. I discuss their use for enhancing the precision of findings obtained with NEO-FFI domain scores.     

Semantic response consistency and protocol validity in structured personality assessment: the case of the NEO-PI-R

In this study we tested the hypothesis that groups of NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a) protocols identified as potentially invalid by an inconsistency scale (INC; Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) would show reduced reliability and validity according to a series of psychometric tests. Data were obtained from 2 undergraduate student samples, a self-report group (n = 132) who provided NEO-PI-R self-ratings on 2 occasions separated by a 7- to 14-day interval and an informant group (n = 109) who provided ratings of well-known friends or relatives on 2 occasions separated by a 6 month interval. INC scores from the Time 1 protocols were used to divide these samples into low, moderate, and elevated inconsistency groups. In both samples, these 3 groups showed equivalent levels of reliability and validity as measured by: contingency coefficients for the 20 INC item responses across occasions; test-retest intraclass correlations of NEO-PI-R domain scores; convergent correlations with Goldberg's (1992) Bipolar Adjective Scale scores; and discriminant correlations between the 5 NEO-PI-R domain scores. The similarity of results across self-report and informant assessment contexts provides additional evidence that semantic consistency approaches to assessing protocol validity may overestimate the prevalence of random or careless response behavior in standard administration conditions. Several theories are discussed that accommodate the existence of valid inconsistency in structured personality assessment.     

Obsessive-compulsive disorder and the five-factor model of personality: distinction and overlap with major depressive disorder

Research on individual differences in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has focused largely on analogue models with participants experiencing sub-clinical obsessions and/or compulsions. Few studies have examined the association between normal, dimensional personality traits and obsessive-compulsive symptomatology in a clinical sample. The purpose of this study was to examine personality differences in patients with a primary diagnosis of OCD (n = 98) or major depression (n = 98) using the domains and facets of the five-factor model of personality (FFM). Patients completed the self-report version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). When contrasted with community controls (Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL, 1992), participants with OCD were found to differ across the domains (and facets) of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness and the facets of openness and agreeableness. Further, when compared to depressed participants, those with OCD were found to be more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious and less neurotic. With the exception of the conscientiousness domain (and facets), these significant differences were maintained even after controlling for depression severity. These results highlight the unique associations between trait domains and facets of the FFM and OCD.     

Detection of dissimulation with the new generation of objective personality measures

This study investigated the effectiveness of two recently developed measures of psychopathology—the Basic Personality Inventory (BPI) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial (Inventory-II) (MCMI-II) in detecting dissimulation (i.e., faking good and faking bad). Both personality measures have developed special ‘validity scales’ to discern dissimulating responses. Ninety-one undergraduate students completed the two personality scales under one of three instructional sets: fake good, fake bad, and honest. In general, the results indicated that both scales were effective in distinguishing the groups from one another. The MCMI-II was better at detecting fake bad responding, while the BPI appeared to be more effective in detecting fake good responding. These differences in identifying fake good and fake bad response styles can be attributed to the method in which the scales were constructed.     

Knowing and Faking One's Five-Factor Personality Score

This article reports on 2 studies, both concerned with the validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The first study, replicated over 3 samples, concerned the validity of the measure as determined by self-ratings. Results indicated that participants were able to predict their extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism scores with reasonable accuracy, but agreeableness and openness-to-experience less so. In addition, participants were not very reliable in predicting others' test scores, although they believed themselves to have scores moderately similar to the other, self-nominated person. The second study showed that the NEO-FFI was highly susceptible to faking, although the all-important fake good versus control comparisons were significant only for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The implications of these studies for applied personality measurement are considered.     

A comparison of the PAI and MMPI-2 as predictors of faking bad in college students

Both the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001) and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) offer a large set of scales devoted to the identification of response styles. This study directly compared the effectiveness of the 2 inventories as indicators of overreporting. The 2 measures were administered to 52 college students instructed to fake bad under conditions describing either a forensic (n = 24) or psychiatric (n = 28) setting as well as to 432 psychiatric patients. Results indicated that the MMPI-2 F - K index and Fp Scale were the best single indicators of a faking bad response style and that the MMPI-2 scales were the better indicators as a set. However, the PAI scales demonstrated a significant level of incremental validity over the MMPI-2 indicators in every analysis conducted. The findings suggest that either inventory offers an effective approach to the detection of overreporting, and administering both inventories can enhance the accuracy of prediction further.     

Malingering on the Personality Assessment Inventory: identification of specific feigned disorders

Profile validity is a primary consideration in the clinical assessment of psychopathology. Several indicators of negative impression management have been developed for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) that can both indicate its presence and help differentiate effortful negative distortion from distortion arising from cognitive sets associated with psychopathology. In this study, we tested a method designed to delineate the specific Clinical scales relevant for interpretation of deliberately feigned disorders. We used associations between the Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale and Clinical scales in the normative standardization sample to derive NIM predicted scale scores in a regression framework. We contrasted these predicted scores with observed scores on Clinical scales to yield NIM predicted discrepancies hypothesized to identify those Clinical scales most salient for the interpretation of negative distortion. We found this method to be effective in identifying particular distortion on the relevant scales for individuals attempting to feign 3 specific diagnoses (major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia).